"In this chapter, we’ll analyze how fast each of these operations when applied
to an array."

"are" should be placed after "operations"--Gareth Nicholson

"In this chapter, we’ll analyze how fast each of these operations when applied
to an array."
"are" should be placed after "operations"--Gareth Nic...more...

Reported in:
B3.0
(31-May-17)

#81593PDF page: 17

"For example, the process for preparing a bowl of cereal is can be called an algorithm."

"is" needs to be removed.--Gareth Nicholson

Reported in:
B4.0
(01-Jun-17)

#81602PDF page: 33

"O(1) is the way to describe
any algorithm is that doesn’t change its number of steps even when the data
increases"

"is" needs to be removed after algorithm.--Gareth Nicholson

"O(1) is the way to describe
any algorithm is that doesn’t change its number of steps even when the data
increases"
"is" needs to be removed afte...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(30-Aug-17)

#81999PDF page: 40

Step #8: We being by comparing
=>
We begin by comparing--Phillip Davis

Reported in:
B4.0
(28-Jun-17)

#81745PDF page: 64

"And indeed - between if given the choice between those two options, Selection Sort is the better choice."

should read

"And indeed - if given the choice between those two options, Selection Sort is the better choice."

--Csaba Nemeth

"And indeed - between if given the choice between those two options, Selection Sort is the better choice."
should read
"And indeed - if given th...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(18-Aug-17)

#81971PDF page: 65

Chapter 6
The image in step 3 is from an example mentioned earlier in the same chapter. Also, there is a mistake in step 12's image regarding the result.

Step 3 image:
Correction [2 4 7 1 3]
Mistake in the book [4 8 2 3]

Step 12 image:
Correction [1 2 4 7 3]
Mistake in the book [2 4 7 1 3]

These mistakes totally break the flow, and I noticed that this mistake hasn't been fixed sine B4 of the book as it was reported by another reader.

Chapter 6
The image in step 3 is from an example mentioned earlier in the same chapter. Also, there is a mistake in step 12's image regarding the res...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(27-Apr-18)

#83045PDF page: 65

The page has wrong picture at `Step 3`--Andrey Nikichkin

Reported in:
P1.0
(24-Nov-17)

#82298PDF page: 65

Super minor, it looks like the arrays examples were swapped between topics.
On page 65, Insertion Sort in Action, the example array corresponds to the previous example 'Insertion Sort'

Great book! Thanks!--Carmen Diaz Echauri

Super minor, it looks like the arrays examples were swapped between topics.
On page 65, Insertion Sort in Action, the example array corresponds to t...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(27-Apr-18)

#83046PDF page: 67

Step 12 has wrong picture--Valentina Nikichkina

Reported in:
P1.0
(30-Aug-17)

#82000PDF page: 68

In addition to the errors already reported by another reader at step #3 and step #12,
at "Insertion Sort in Action" step #18:
Correction [1 2 3 4 7] and the arrow should point at the "3" in the middle of the sequence.
Mistake in book [1 2 4 7 3] and the arrow is pointing at "1".
--Phillip Davis

In addition to the errors already reported by another reader at step #3 and step #12,
at "Insertion Sort in Action" step #18:
Correction [1 2 3 4 7]...more...

Step 18's diagram doesn't show the '3' being inserted in the gap.--Matt Cree

Reported in:
B4.0
(28-Jun-17)

#81747PDF page: 76

"When examining at this pattern, ...."

should read

"When examining this pattern, ..."--Csaba Nemeth

Reported in:
P1.0
(24-Nov-17)

#82300PDF page: 81

This is more a question, shouldn't this line of code "for index in range(1, len(array)):"be len(array) -1 instead?. When it reaches to the last index temp_value = array[index] will be nil and it will blowup in the comparison.

Should we post in the forum questions like this? or is it okay for me to send it through this form?

Thanks!
--Carmen Diaz Echauri

This is more a question, shouldn't this line of code "for index in range(1, len(array)):"be len(array) -1 instead?. When it reaches to the last inde...more...

Reported in:
B4.0
(04-Jun-17)

#81643PDF page: 107

In the section about "Insertion Sort in Action", some of the images are wrong.

- In Passthrough #1, Step #3 there is 4823, instead of 24713.

- In Passthrough #3, Step #12 there is 24713, instead of 12473.

- In Passthrough #4, Step #18 there is 12473, instead of 12347.--Anders Gustafson

In the section about "Insertion Sort in Action", some of the images are wrong.
- In Passthrough #1, Step #3 there is 4823, instead of 24713.
- I...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(10-Sep-17)

#82055PDF page: 117

In SortableArray#partition!

while @array[right_pointer] > pivot do right_pointer -= 1 end

The right pointer could go negative, it still works in Ruby, but could be improved.--Emen Zhao

In SortableArray#partition!
while @array[right_pointer] > pivot do right_pointer -= 1 end
The right pointer could go negative, it still works in...more...

Reported in:
B4.0
(01-Jun-17)

#81619PDF page: 124

The sentence right above step 7:

"We compare the left pointer(2) to our pivot. Is the value the value less than the pivot? It is, so the left pointer moves on."

Should be:

"We compare the left pointer(2) to our pivot. Is the value less than the pivot? It is, so the left pointer moves on."
--Neil Hainer

The sentence right above step 7:
"We compare the left pointer(2) to our pivot. Is the value the value less than the pivot? It is, so the left poi...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(13-Dec-17)

#82377Paper page: 138

(Bottom of the page)
"... since we create a new node and modify the links of the blue and green nodes ..."
The link of the green node is not modified. Perhaps you meant the purple (new)
node's link?--Wayne

(Bottom of the page)
"... since we create a new node and modify the links of the blue and green nodes ..."
The link of the green node is not modifie...more...

Reported in:
P1.0
(10-Sep-17)

#82056PDF page: 140

LinkedList#insert_at_index

Insert at index 0 does not seem to work.--Emen Zhao

Reported in:
P1.0
(13-Dec-17)

#82378Paper page: 141

(towards the bottom of the page)
delete_at_index(0) does not seem to work either, even though this case is correctly
described in the text on page 140:
"... we change the first_node of the linked list to now point to the second node."
i.e., first_node = first_node.next_node--Wayne

(towards the bottom of the page)
delete_at_index(0) does not seem to work either, even though this case is correctly
described in the text on page 1...more...

Reported in:
B4.0
(05-Jun-17)

#81650PDF page: 143

First paragraph, last sentence:

"The final node's link is contains null since the linked list ends there."